Politics, or moreso Democracy

Democracy, first coined by the Greeks as δημοκρατία or dēmokratía is the main political system of the Developed World. It is a brilliant piece of political ideology, the people choose who leads them and it's their choice, to argue the latter is to be a dictator. Well people are stupid, and it's because of that, that democracy blurs the lines between a political system to a way of life.

Democracy isn't concrete, there are nations in the world that openly reject free democracy: Cuba, China, and by proxy most of the Africas under military junta. It's inherent flaws lies in not the system itself but how it has become warped. Power to the people, and their collective choice is what determines the rule of a country for a set period of time. By the act of simple majority, it negates the logical premise that everyone's view is equal and balanced, it isn't. Stupid people make stupid voters which in turn makes a stupid state that is ruled by a smarter political party. It's usually one of two big parties in the Western world, conservatives and liberals in name only. Conservatives which feature most prominently on the right are heavily favored as fiscal conservatives, low budget deficits, reduced state welfare and lower tax with progressive policy. Liberals on the left (usually) espouse state welfare, interventionist policy and 'liberal ideals' gay marriage, abortion etc. Without going into it too much, the vote is pretty much divided in each election 50/40/10, which doesn't clearly give too much of an idea of what the country wants. The last US presidency was won with a 53/48 split, with a country so divided on ideals it's hard to imagine that this is what people want. Many would argue at least a system that works is better than no system at all, to argue the side of the communist is probably stupid but hey I'm stupid. On paper communism sounds "pretty good", in practice not so great and democracy much the same. Imagine a scenario like this out of 100 people 53 want pizza and 48 want pasta, because 5 more people wanted pizza everyone must now have pizza for the entire meal.

Although I myself have no better system of going about it, I do believe that a rigid system of democracy is probably the least 'worst', the lesser of two evils, it's only when stupid people vote that it creates havoc. In the homeland of democracy, Greece it is a scenario where the people have enjoyed high standards of living and when economic crisis occurs they riot against their government. People have elected a government to lead, and not to please. Government's should take action on the part of the citizenry and not take action so it can stay in power, an ass move like the debt crisis should send resounding issues about government deficits and how a democracy like the USA is owing 15T in combined household debt. Democratic governments shouldn't appease their voters with perks like tax cuts or immensely ridiculously unsustainable welfare(Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) they should be managing a nation.

Had a lot more to say but my fingers are could and I generally cbf.

"A house divided against itself cannot stand." - Abraham Lincoln

The Next Oxford Dictionary

Now besides the idiotic banter that now compiles everyday talk especially over other mediums such as instant messaging and phone texting, there still might be some hope for new words in the English language. Although it is beyond stupid to comprehend why the words i now propose will ever be needed, nevertheless i shall put forth the arguments to support the implementation of a few new words i believe should be in the official dictionary.

ambiguile (adjective) - to be ambiguous in their actions
Where ambiguous is ironically ambiguous in relation to describing a person, ambiguile should be used. E.g. "Bob is ambiguous." The question remains whether bob is ambiguous in his actions, his name is ambiguous, his status (in society or otherwise) is ambiguous or his character is ambiguous. However, if one were to say: "Bob is ambiguile." it were to infer that Bob's actions are ambiguous. Therefore if one were to say "Bob is standing in the shade. Yeah, he's definitely ambiguile" it would mean that his actions of standing in the shade are ambiguous and therefore the purpose of Bob standing in the shade is abnormal or ambiguous in reason. Whereas "Bob is standing in the shade. Yeah, he's definitely ambiguous" would rather refer to his position being of ambiguity, that is he is a well hidden spot.

convinciation (noun) - the act of convincing one particularly in ones point of view.
It is a mere extension of the word convince and replaces the participle 'convincing'. "how good was my convincing" can now be "how good was my convinciation" where it refers directly to the merit of the act of convincing as a whole. Most people would however say: "how good were my arguments" when referring to the statements one inferred to convince. However, when referring to other than speech methods of argument, it would seem that 'convinciation' could make an important distinction. "how good were my convinciations" would refer to the many acts of convincing - i.e. non-speech 'arguments'. Although one may also use "how good was my persuasion" in the first example, the latter example is not applicable in the same situation.

Although both aforementioned words are fairly redundant and could be easily replaced in speech by a phase to distinguish the ambiguities in English, it remains of society's interest in most facets of life to question the status quo, even in portions as petty as two words.

The Canon

The machinations behind the study of literature at a high school stage would come largely contained within an arbitrarily decided canon of literary works. This canon would prove to be controversial, fuelling argument amongst even the most esteemed literary geniuses. [1] Indeed such a canon can never truly exist although its contents can be disputed and eventually agreed by a board of self-acknowledging intellectuals (also known as the board of studies in Australia).

Many would place canonised texts as a direct portrait of literary brilliance but is it truly fair to compare the Bible to the many books that derive a portion of their ideals and values to such an important document. In essence the argument is can Stephanie Meyer's Twilight franchise, although having experienced (and still is experiencing) almost worldwide commercial success, compare to the Bible in its so called canonisation capability. By sheer monetary success, both fictional novels are competitive. The Bible has however had many more centuries to ascertain greater success with many adaptations of stories and has been archived as the number one best selling book of all time [2]. However in recent years, Twilight has also spawned many movies and its franchise has been consistently growing in fan base as each successive part of its story is released. In terms of social influence, it would be near impossible to say that the Bible is less than Twilight however the debate still remains competitive if considerations of time are taken into account. The Bible was written countless centuries ago (a relative date of c. 1455 to 55 can be dated for the English version [2]) and thus Twilight still has many years to progress in influence given its first edition publication date of 2005 [3]. The Bible has spawned a religion and even influenced an entire structure of society based somewhat entirely upon its teachings. [4] Twilight cannot be discounted in its influence either as it has nonetheless created a widespread obsession with vampires or references to it remain exponentially increasing with time. [5] Nevertheless, most councils would proscribe the Bible as a highly commendable read and Twilight as mere ‘teenage angst’ putrid thus where does the criteria in which the Bible is deemed canonised and Twilight not. Perhaps time is the crucial contributing factor to the decision but then with this considered perhaps in several years time English students would read Meyer instead of Shakespeare. Indeed i am not saying that Twilight contains as much literary brilliance as Shakespeare or the Bible's authors (which position i believe is attributed to the many disciples of Jesus).

It must be stated that it is near foolish to compare the Bible to Twilight. Even comparison of the two texts in respect to the point of view that the Bible is above, and somewhat beyond Twilight in all facets of literature (whatever such a term encompasses) is also equally idiotic. It must be critiqued though the rationale behind an arbitrarily decided canon list and the many individuals who self-proclaim themselves as literary geniuses, and as such decide which texts are of literary brilliance and otherwise "better as firewood" texts. The stress is upon the ideal that literary brilliance is unique to all texts and thus comparison between texts is somewhat idiotic although the basis of at least the majority of high school English study.

As a rather moronic friend would state: "to bone or not to bone. That is the question." [6] Such a quotation would retain a different literary signifigance to the original but nonetheless substantial if not similar.

References:
[1] Two such genuises: lifemadeoflego.blogspot.com, tehjourney.blogspot.com
[2] http://home.comcast.net/~antaylor1/bestsellingbooks.html
[3] http://www.listal.com/list/twilight-series
[4] http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/history/history_1.shtml
[5] Does it really need to be referenced?
[6] http://reekinsluts.blogspot.com/

Further Reading:
http://blogs.bible.org/tapestry/sue_bohlin/the_appeal_of_twilight (If you have time to read anything, read this!)
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/stories/s817468.htm
http://www.stepheniemeyer.com/twilight.html

A Structuralist Approach To A Blog

Structuralism and its critics which would come to view in the early 20th century as post-structuralists would establish a basis in defining the core understanding of many literary pieces which otherwise would define a certain lesser meaning than intended. Where definitive ideology is arguably impossible, i would clarify myself as largely a modernist and structuralist where meaning is established directly by the author and although different perspectives can be derived from such ideals, there is but a single defined message that i personally believe am trying to get across to the audience. Although i could discuss many different authors and social scientists as well as their integral contribution to the ideas that encompass structuralism and post-structuralism, i rather prefer introducing a new structure that this blog apprehends. One of which literary ideas should be written in any manner which is deemed fit whether it be structuralist, post-structuralist, modernist, post-modernist, communist, marxist, existentialist, nihilist or "im a literary and philosophical genius and thus shall talk about the allegory of the Plato’s cave"-ist.